In 1978 Gilles was a rookie and Carlos R was one of the mast talented and fastest of drivers; they got on well and Carlos actually generously gave Gilles positive advice. Great drivers did not start at the top, and had to develop (except Lewis Hamilton!) including Moss, Clark, Stewart (in his rookie season only won once 'with no poles, to Graham Hill's two wins and four poles).

It is important to read results in context, before using them as pure measures of inter-driver judgement.

I was quite young in 1978 but I remember a few races here and there but I distinctly remember my dad's frustration with Gilles as he was a huge Ferrari Fan.

As for the bit in Bold... Senna, Prost, Schumacher, Clark, Stewart, Piquet, Ascari, Fangio were all top tier talent from the get and they only got better with time. In Senna's case in particular… I mean when it held together, he took that Toleman to places no one else likely could have. I don't feel it's wrong to say Gilles doesn't belong in the same conversation.

I'm not bashing on the guy but just as Senna's legend grew to almost god-like heights thanks to his premature death, so too has that of Gilles Villeneuve. But that is indeed human nature.

Once again, a valid comment I fully agree with. People are funny, and sometimes death at a certain time adds an aura of weird half-truths, misconceptions, or just elevating the individual. I can think of many martyrs who elevated their cause and personal status just because of (for them) poor timing. Joan of Arc, Jesus, Gandhi, just to name a few. Even for drivers it happens too. Not only Senna and Villeneuve, but Earnhardt and Jimmy Clark.

I can't comment on Earnhardt because i have no interest in NASCAR, however Jim Clark was considered to be the best and didn't need to die in order to gain adulation

Quite correct, Clark and Senna were absolute greats who happened to be the most talented drivers of there generation before they died.

Regarding Senna, autosports editors and writers voted 1) Fangio 2)Senna 3)Clark as the greatest drivers of all time... that was at the end of 1991 - 3 years before he died. So it was not as it Senna was not already being considered one of the best ever before he died. Watch period documentaries and interviews, Senna was considered the best of that generation before his death. De facto.

While many might have considered him among the top 3 ever, many others felt Prost was still too strong a force to rule out of contention for whatever position some felt Senna belonged in, myself included. Senna had the most raw talent of his era but talent alone does not make someone the best. As with all top tier sports, the mental aspect has a great deal to do with the level of success an athlete achieves. As well Senna was for Autosports editors a dream commodity. The controversy and wars and whining sure sold a lot of copies of their publications and from all the interviews I've seen from reporters who covered him throughout his career, most are heavily bias towards Senna in an almost obscenely romantic way and when they tell a story about him the romanticism is quite prominent. However, when they speak about Piquet, Mansell, and Prost, it's all matter of fact with little to no emotion and that's just not right. I doubt anyone in the history of F1 risked as much as Mansell did to break into the sport and that guy NEEDED to win more than anyone else and when he won there was a feeling of joy for him from anyone who knew how much he sacrificed and risked to make it. On top of that, he was the elder statesman yet was on par with the younger sensations, Senna and Prost. Mansell pushing his car to the point of fainting is certainly a more sensational story than most of the Senna stories (speaking only to wins), yet on the ultra-rare occasion people speak of that moment it lacks the emotion and romanticism that a story about Senna tying his shoes would.

If someone were to sit down with Nigel and write a screenplay, what an amazing story that would be, though I suspect there would be a bit of Prost bashing as well.

While many might have considered him among the top 3 ever, many others felt Prost was still too strong a force to rule out of contention for whatever position some felt Senna belonged in, myself included. Senna had the most raw talent of his era but talent alone does not make someone the best. As with all top tier sports, the mental aspect has a great deal to do with the level of success an athlete achieves. As well Senna was for Autosports editors a dream commodity. The controversy and wars and whining sure sold a lot of copies of their publications and from all the interviews I've seen from reporters who covered him throughout his career, most are heavily bias towards Senna in an almost obscenely romantic way and when they tell a story about him the romanticism is quite prominent. However, when they speak about Piquet, Mansell, and Prost, it's all matter of fact with little to no emotion and that's just not right. I doubt anyone in the history of F1 risked as much as Mansell did to break into the sport and that guy NEEDED to win more than anyone else and when he won there was a feeling of joy for him from anyone who knew how much he sacrificed and risked to make it. On top of that, he was the elder statesman yet was on par with the younger sensations, Senna and Prost. Mansell pushing his car to the point of fainting is certainly a more sensational story than most of the Senna stories (speaking only to wins), yet on the ultra-rare occasion people speak of that moment it lacks the emotion and romanticism that a story about Senna tying his shoes would.

If someone were to sit down with Nigel and write a screenplay, what an amazing story that would be, though I suspect there would be a bit of Prost bashing as well.

I agree and mentioned in another topic recently that every time I see the 'clip' of Mansell trying to push his car to the finishing line (and collapsing), it brings me close to tears.

As for Gilles, unfortunately he raced before I started watching F1 - but the fact that his name comes up whenever 'greats' are talked about, is enough for me to believe that he is one of the F1 'greats'. Everybody knows his name - that is pretty rare amongst F1 drivers from decades ago!

Incubus, I agree with your suggestion that Prost was always formidable, even against Senna. Lauda once said he'd love to have seen Prost at his fastest as in 1984-5, against Senna in 1988-9. All drivers have performance 'curves' of differing shape. Some start off fast almost immediately like Lewis H, others take more time (Piquet, G Villenueve, Mansell, Vettel) but all develop into close-matched, great talents.

Also agree that Mansell was a great driver and belongs up there. Many misread his profuse perspiration and physical exhaustion after some races as being from 'his 'rough, physical style'. This is not correct; Nigel had such sensitive feel for car/road as he has shown in his golf, excellent timing and athleticism, as well as being a charging, fast racer in the best sense. Nigel proved his abilities with Rosberg at Williams in late 1985, then confirmed and developed them against Piquet in 1986-7.

While many might have considered him among the top 3 ever, many others felt Prost was still too strong a force to rule out of contention for whatever position some felt Senna belonged in, myself included. Senna had the most raw talent of his era but talent alone does not make someone the best. As with all top tier sports, the mental aspect has a great deal to do with the level of success an athlete achieves. As well Senna was for Autosports editors a dream commodity. The controversy and wars and whining sure sold a lot of copies of their publications and from all the interviews I've seen from reporters who covered him throughout his career, most are heavily bias towards Senna in an almost obscenely romantic way and when they tell a story about him the romanticism is quite prominent. However, when they speak about Piquet, Mansell, and Prost, it's all matter of fact with little to no emotion and that's just not right. I doubt anyone in the history of F1 risked as much as Mansell did to break into the sport and that guy NEEDED to win more than anyone else and when he won there was a feeling of joy for him from anyone who knew how much he sacrificed and risked to make it. On top of that, he was the elder statesman yet was on par with the younger sensations, Senna and Prost. Mansell pushing his car to the point of fainting is certainly a more sensational story than most of the Senna stories (speaking only to wins), yet on the ultra-rare occasion people speak of that moment it lacks the emotion and romanticism that a story about Senna tying his shoes would.

If someone were to sit down with Nigel and write a screenplay, what an amazing story that would be, though I suspect there would be a bit of Prost bashing as well.

Ahem, Prost was only 18 months younger than Mansell, and made his F1 debut before him.

I'm not disagreeing that Mansell had a rough ride getting into F1, but until he managed to sit in the Williams FW11 he was considered to be an average driver - tough, yes, but not exactly WDC material. His reputation was built on challenging Piquet during '86, something that he was not expected to do. And he had a phenomenal ability to bully a car around the track.

The thing that always struck me with Mansell was that despite clearly being one of the strongest, toughest drivers out there, he always seemed to be the guy who was injured/exhausted. I'm not doubting that driving in Dallas in '84 was a very tiring experience, but have you ever tried to push an F1 car? You can do it with one hand. A 1984-spec F1 car only weighed 540kgs. Collapsing in front of the cameras was just the first of many times Mansell turned into a drama queen, and I don't think it did him any good. Whilst the fans loved him, there were a great number of drivers who didn't (Mario Andretti for one). The only reason he came back to Williams in '94, and subsequently McLaren in '95, was due to Bernie's insistence, as he was scared that F1 audiences might collapse unless some recognised names were running. Neither Frank nor Ron wanted to have Mansell, but Bernie 'Did a Bernie' and offered both teams incentives to place him.

So whilst undoubtedly a good driver, I think Mansell ranks last out of the 1980's 'Big Four'.

Like Blinky I was fortunate to see GIlles V race in both F Atlantics and in F1. Imo in F1 he developed into as fast as any other great driver. His 'wild' exploits were consciously done; Jody Scheckter told how Gilles used to play to his fans, especially driving on the roads in Maranello, when he'd rev-up and wheelspin. But that in the GP car was a very serious, thinking racer. Like Nuvolari and Moss he did go for every race/ win, not score for the Championship, which I prefer to point-scoring drives.

Agreed but he only won 6.

Schumacher has more championships than Villeneuve has race wins.

Schumacher scored 91 wins, Moss only 16, therefore Schumacher must be 5.6875 times better than Moss.

Well you have win %. Schumacher won 34% of his races in his first career, which dropped to 30% on his comeback. Moss has a win % of about 25%. All of those are stunning stats.

I can't comment on Earnhardt because i have no interest in NASCAR, however Jim Clark was considered to be the best and didn't need to die in order to gain adulation

But that's my point. A driver on top of his form, and definitely one of the top in the grid loses his life through tragedy. That driver has legions of fans, and suddenly most speak only about the positive things while ignoring any negative aspects. And then because that driver is gone, it's difficult to challenge anything. I'm going to do a little exercise, and please remember that I have the greatest respect for Jimmy Clark, and the following statements are intended to provoke a reaction, rather than devalue a great driver.

He couldn't win in anything but the best car.Lotus were cheating.He was having trouble getting used to the new wide wires coming into vogue, and his best days were behind him.

Now for many who just read the above statements, some think: "how dare he say that, the man is dead", and/or "that's not right, he was the best ever". Once again my apologies for the comments in italics, but the point is that death changes our perception of the individual, and their status when criticized.

Gilles was a darn good driver, incredibly quick and brave. I adored the guy, and on his demise even I glossed over his faults and spent most of my memories dwelling on his wonderful positive aspects. I pride myself on attempting to be impartial and seeing any driver in anything but a balanced and fair light. But I also recognize that as a devout Gilles fan, my emotions and perception are warped strongly towards the positive and it's difficult to deal with any negative comments on the man.

You seem to have more knowledge about the two drivers than what i do, i can only go by what i read about them from their peers and journalists, Jackie Stewart referred to Clark as being the best of his generation this from a fellow driver and this up to the time he was killed i believe.

As for Villenueve there has been books written about him such was the impression he made upon others, i don't really recall books about Jochen Rindt for instance he doesn't seem to get the same amount of adulation because of his death?

I'm not bashing on the guy but just as Senna's legend grew to almost god-like heights thanks to his premature death, so too has that of Gilles Villeneuve. But that is indeed human nature.

Once again, a valid comment I fully agree with. People are funny, and sometimes death at a certain time adds an aura of weird half-truths, misconceptions, or just elevating the individual. I can think of many martyrs who elevated their cause and personal status just because of (for them) poor timing. Joan of Arc, Jesus, Gandhi, just to name a few. Even for drivers it happens too. Not only Senna and Villeneuve, but Earnhardt and Jimmy Clark.

I can't comment on Earnhardt because i have no interest in NASCAR, however Jim Clark was considered to be the best and didn't need to die in order to gain adulation

Having been a fan of NASCAR when it was a quality series, I will state on the record that Earnhardt was one of the greatest ever. Considering NASCAR has always had a greater number of cars, his 76 wins is damn impressive, and marketing wise, he is still even after his untimely death, the biggest name in NASCAR. Go figure.

Today's NASCRAP is a distant vision of what it once was and just like F1 you have many Pay Drivers that might otherwise never had a shot and thus the racing is not all it could or should be.

So it would be also true to say that Earnhardt didn't need to die in order to be recognised as being a great driver?

I'm not bashing on the guy but just as Senna's legend grew to almost god-like heights thanks to his premature death, so too has that of Gilles Villeneuve. But that is indeed human nature.

Once again, a valid comment I fully agree with. People are funny, and sometimes death at a certain time adds an aura of weird half-truths, misconceptions, or just elevating the individual. I can think of many martyrs who elevated their cause and personal status just because of (for them) poor timing. Joan of Arc, Jesus, Gandhi, just to name a few. Even for drivers it happens too. Not only Senna and Villeneuve, but Earnhardt and Jimmy Clark.

I can't comment on Earnhardt because i have no interest in NASCAR, however Jim Clark was considered to be the best and didn't need to die in order to gain adulation

Having been a fan of NASCAR when it was a quality series, I will state on the record that Earnhardt was one of the greatest ever. Considering NASCAR has always had a greater number of cars, his 76 wins is damn impressive, and marketing wise, he is still even after his untimely death, the biggest name in NASCAR. Go figure.

Today's NASCRAP is a distant vision of what it once was and just like F1 you have many Pay Drivers that might otherwise never had a shot and thus the racing is not all it could or should be.

So it would be also true to say that Earnhardt didn't need to die in order to be recognised as being a great driver?

No he didn't and he was already touted as being one of the greatest with some of his maniacal fans insisting he was the absolute greatest. I's rank him top 4-5 all-time personally and he was a bit like Piquet Sr. In that he knew a whole hell of a lot about just about every aspect of his cars. Not on the same level as Piquet, but not too far off. And his nickname "The Intimidator" was born out of how good he was at riding peoples' bumpers (not bumping) to the point they'd become rattled and make mistakes that he took advantage of. He was one cunning SOB in the car, and a gentleman outside of it, unless you crossed him. LOL

Some perform at the top for ten years and more like Schumacher and eight years for Fangio, others like Gilles Villeneuve and Rindt for just a season or so.

With Mansell, Vince14 makes a good assessment. My view/placing of Nigel: he was beaten by Prost in 1990 at Ferrari and faced Piquet in same-cars in 1986-7 when Nelson was no longer performing at his peak. I also think Senna would have beaten Mansell in same-cars. However in 1992 Nigel imo performed at the very top: he was secure at Williams as number one, the active-suspension car suited his gung-ho racer style (in the best sense), he had a very fast but non-threatening, nice-guy, team-mate Patrese who did all the testing and development which Nigel did not enjoy or do much of. In this one year I have rated Mansell at the ultimate 100.0; otherwise I score him lower, like Rindt, Peterson, Hakkinen, just below the best of their day, Stewart, Lauda and Schumacher.

I agree with Vince14 that Nigel does not belong up with the very best drivers mentioned, and retract/qualify my statement. Like Rindt, Peterson, Hakkinen though, he was very good, such a committed racer who gave of his best. I witnessed Nigel's second win at Kyalami in the awesome turbo Williams-Honda when he narrowly beat team-mate Keke Rosberg; the best show of speed, power and all-out racing I ever saw. Few noticed how well Nigel did in 1988, due to his driving an off-pace Willliams-Judd, yet imo one of his best seasons. But like Gilles V, if the car is not fast enough, the driver gets downgraded.

HOWEVER… and that's a BIG however, unlike many of those other drivers who are considered to be a slight notch below the elite drivers of their era. None of them were viewed as a viable threat at pretty much every race the way Mansell was. Mansell was such that he was not wired to accept defeat and NEVER gave up and pushed himself and his cars (no matter how uncompetitive) and more so than most he could, would and did muster wins in cars I'm not so sure anyone else could have won in. To me, Mansell was a mix of Fernando Alonso in how he's constantly adapting to the car to learn where and in what way it's lacking in order to figure out a way around them and then there's another element that's tough to describe unless you actually watched him race. He was very Senna-like in that he felt he could always win and had the speed to do so but his style was more aggressive in how he would whip a car for an entire race the way a jockey would do to his horse coming out of turn 4 for the final sprint down the home stretch.

And when the car was just right NO ONE could touch him. For me all of these qualities separate him from the rest of those other guys you mentioned. Hakkinen rarely had days where he was completely untouchable, and I don't feel Villeneuve or Rindt should be considered greats. With Peterson however, had the speed and when the car held together he won races, but for some reason he was usually dealing with Gremlins and it cost him.

Just came across this wonderfully magnificent library of photos covering racing since the early 70's, possibly even before. There's F1, CART/CHAMPCAR/INDY, as well as CanAm, and some Moto GP, possibly more. Just such a treat I though and I figured it's only right to share with my fellow PF1-ers.

enjoy!!!

This is the complete collection this gentleman has of Gilles for those of you whom are tremendous fans:

Thank you so much! I was always struck by how different Jacques and Gilles seemed to look, but the second picture in this album shows only Gilles' eyes. And I immediately saw the resemblance. Again, many thanks!

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

What a collection of photo's this guy has. Just wow. Just wish he had more from the '86-'98 Cart years.At least there are some with excellent captions detailing just how diverse and how closely intertwined CART & F1 were at one point.

What a collection of photo's this guy has. Just wow. Just wish he had more from the '86-'98 Cart years.At least there are some with excellent captions detailing just how diverse and how closely intertwined CART & F1 were at one point.

Thank you very much Incubus. Yes, you're not alone in the "crackhead F1 fan" department.

Bravo POB!!! It's one disease I only want the cure for, oh about 2 months, and then I'm right back to wanting my next fix! LOL

Blinky… C'monnnnn!!!! Ha! That would be the equivalent of a mid 60's F1 car. I have the Modern F1 Mouse in my Magic Mouse. Sleekest of all input devices and so full of as much tech as can be squeezed into such a tight package!